Thank you for collecting and publishing in one blog these letters from readers as the anxious wait is on for the answer from Congress. Whereas all the letters provide key points for consideration, personally I find the first one from Chris Birchenhall of Manchester particularly convincing.

I like the Russian idea that Syria hand over chemical weapons. No we can't be sure they'll hand over everything but the point will be made that using them has consequences and thus any re-use by Assad's people will bring down real wrath.

The Russian idea has the additional advantages that it:

a) Doesn't kill innocents, as missiles usually do.
b) Doesn't advance the cause of either side, so we don't install Islamists in Assad's place.
c) Shows that other nations will actively intervene rather than just stand offshore to fire weapons.
d) Allows for the possibility that Assad's people used these weapons without authorization.

And finally, there are suggestions Assad's people have used nerve agents in much lower concentrations before. Taking away chemical supplies sends a message that doing this will have consequences.

I'm probably one of the few pro-intervention people out there. Don't have too much to add, other than that I agree with the last contributor. If we aren't going to intervene meaningfully to end the war, then we should endeavor to evacuate as many Syrians from the country as possible. If the entirety of the anti-regime population wishes to leave, then we should be ready to evacuate them all. Bring them here to America, and give them help to rebuild their lives. Our country was founded by people trying to flee religious persecution, and it'd be only fitting to play the same role again.

It's a policy that a lot of us, pro- or anti- military intervention, can agree with. (Let's hope Congress doesn't get so busy posturing again that they can't actually do something worthwhile like this.)

If the entirety of the anti-regime population wishes to leave, then we should be ready to evacuate them all. Bring them here to America, and give them help to rebuild their lives. Our country was founded by people trying to flee religious persecution, and it'd be only fitting to play the same role again. - Your comment.

That's certainly a most generous proposal! Not sure the anti-immigration folks will go along. Already they think - mistakenly - all immigrants come to America either to make babies and get on welfare or rob Americans of jobs.

But in the long run, what you propose may cost less to pull off than fighting wars that never end. Wars are not cheap.